Integrating AI for Enhanced Feedback in Translation Revision- A Mixed-Methods Investigation of Student Engagement

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.08581v1
• Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2024 07:21:29 GMT
• Title: Integrating AI for Enhanced Feedback in Translation Revision- A Mixed-Methods Investigation of Student Engagement
• Authors: Simin Xu, Yanfang Su, Kanglong Liu,
• Abstract summary: The application of Artificial Intelligence (AI)-generated feedback, particularly from language models like ChatGPT, remains understudied in translation education. This study investigates the engagement of master's students in translation with ChatGPT-generated feedback during their revision process.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Despite the well-established importance of feedback in education, the application of Artificial Intelligence (AI)-generated feedback, particularly from language models like ChatGPT, remains understudied in translation education. This study investigates the engagement of master's students in translation with ChatGPT-generated feedback during their revision process. A mixed-methods approach, combining a translation-and-revision experiment with quantitative and qualitative analyses, was employed to examine the feedback, translations pre-and post-revision, the revision process, and student reflections. The results reveal complex interrelations among cognitive, affective, and behavioural dimensions influencing students' engagement with AI feedback and their subsequent revisions. Specifically, the findings indicate that students invested considerable cognitive effort in the revision process, despite finding the feedback comprehensible. Additionally, they exhibited moderate affective satisfaction with the feedback model. Behaviourally, their actions were largely influenced by cognitive and affective factors, although some inconsistencies were observed. This research provides novel insights into the potential applications of AI-generated feedback in translation teachingand opens avenues for further investigation into the integration of AI tools in language teaching settings.

Related papers

• Using Generative AI and Multi-Agents to Provide Automatic Feedback [4.883570605293337]
  This study investigates the use of generative AI and multi-agent systems to provide automatic feedback in educational contexts. The research addresses a key gap in the field by exploring how multi-agent systems, called AutoFeedback, can improve the quality of GenAI-generated feedback.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-11T22:27:36Z)
• Personalised Feedback Framework for Online Education Programmes Using Generative AI [0.0]
  This paper presents an alternative feedback framework which extends the capabilities of ChatGPT by integrating embeddings. As part of the study, we proposed and developed a proof of concept solution, achieving an efficacy rate of 90% and 100% for open-ended and multiple-choice questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T22:35:40Z)
• Closing the Loop: Learning to Generate Writing Feedback via Language Model Simulated Student Revisions [6.216542656489173]
  We propose PROF that PROduces Feedback via learning from LM simulated student revisions. We empirically test the efficacy of PROF and observe that our approach surpasses a variety of baseline methods in effectiveness of improving students' writing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-10T15:52:48Z)
• "My Grade is Wrong!": A Contestable AI Framework for Interactive Feedback in Evaluating Student Essays [6.810086342993699]
  This paper introduces CAELF, a Contestable AI Empowered LLM Framework for automating interactive feedback. CAELF allows students to query, challenge, and clarify their feedback by integrating a multi-agent system with computational argumentation. A case study on 500 critical thinking essays with user studies demonstrates that CAELF significantly improves interactive feedback.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-11T17:59:01Z)
• Rethinking the Evaluation of Dialogue Systems: Effects of User Feedback on Crowdworkers and LLMs [57.16442740983528]
  In ad-hoc retrieval, evaluation relies heavily on user actions, including implicit feedback. The role of user feedback in annotators' assessment of turns in a conversational perception has been little studied. We focus on how the evaluation of task-oriented dialogue systems ( TDSs) is affected by considering user feedback, explicit or implicit, as provided through the follow-up utterance of a turn being evaluated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-19T16:45:50Z)
• Evaluating and Optimizing Educational Content with Large Language Model Judgments [52.33701672559594]
  We use Language Models (LMs) as educational experts to assess the impact of various instructions on learning outcomes. We introduce an instruction optimization approach in which one LM generates instructional materials using the judgments of another LM as a reward function. Human teachers' evaluations of these LM-generated worksheets show a significant alignment between the LM judgments and human teacher preferences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-05T09:09:15Z)
• Re-mine, Learn and Reason: Exploring the Cross-modal Semantic Correlations for Language-guided HOI detection [57.13665112065285]
  Human-Object Interaction (HOI) detection is a challenging computer vision task. We present a framework that enhances HOI detection by incorporating structured text knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-25T14:20:52Z)
• Factually Consistent Summarization via Reinforcement Learning with Textual Entailment Feedback [57.816210168909286]
  We leverage recent progress on textual entailment models to address this problem for abstractive summarization systems. We use reinforcement learning with reference-free, textual entailment rewards to optimize for factual consistency. Our results, according to both automatic metrics and human evaluation, show that our method considerably improves the faithfulness, salience, and conciseness of the generated summaries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-31T21:04:04Z)
• Impact of combining human and analytics feedback on students' engagement with, and performance in, reflective writing tasks [3.4843936798388015]
  This study proposes a personalised behavioural feedback intervention based on students' writing engagement analytics. In a semester-long experimental study involving 81 postgraduate students, its impact on learning engagement and performance was studied.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-15T15:41:26Z)
• Investigating Fairness Disparities in Peer Review: A Language Model Enhanced Approach [77.61131357420201]
  We conduct a thorough and rigorous study on fairness disparities in peer review with the help of large language models (LMs) We collect, assemble, and maintain a comprehensive relational database for the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) conference from 2017 to date. We postulate and study fairness disparities on multiple protective attributes of interest, including author gender, geography, author, and institutional prestige.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-07T16:19:42Z)
• Facial Feedback for Reinforcement Learning: A Case Study and Offline Analysis Using the TAMER Framework [51.237191651923666]
  We investigate the potential of agent learning from trainers' facial expressions via interpreting them as evaluative feedback. With designed CNN-RNN model, our analysis shows that telling trainers to use facial expressions and competition can improve the accuracies for estimating positive and negative feedback. Our results with a simulation experiment show that learning solely from predicted feedback based on facial expressions is possible.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-23T17:50:57Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.